Talk:Phyllanthus

References

Phyllanthus is a mess, which is probably not surprising for one of the largest genuses in Plantae. Where to start? I'm gathering some references but it isn't really my field.

!!! Hashendra Kathriarachchi, Rosabelle Samuel, Petra Hoffmann, Jelena Mlinarec, Kenneth J. Wurdack, Hélène Ralimanana, Tod F. Stuessy and Mark W. Chase Phylogenetics of tribe Phyllantheae (Phyllanthaceae; Euphorbiaceae sensu lato) based on nrITS and plastid matK DNA sequence data (American Journal of Botany. 2006;93:637-655.)

!! Kenneth J. Wurdack, Petra Hoffmann, Rosabelle Samuel, Anette de Bruijn, Michelle van der Bank and Mark W. Chase Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Phyllanthaceae (Phyllanthoideae pro parte, Euphorbiaceae sensu lato) using plastid RBCL DNA sequences (American Journal of Botany. 2004;91:1882-1900.)

!!!! Rosabelle Samuel, Hashendra Kathriarachchi, Petra Hoffmann, Michael H. J. Barfuss, Kenneth J. Wurdack, Charles C. Davis and Mark W. Chase Molecular phylogenetics of Phyllanthaceae: evidence from plastid MATK and nuclear PHYC sequences (American Journal of Botany. 2005;92:132-141.)

! Sutee Duangjai, Bruno Wallnöfer, Rosabelle Samuel, Jérôme Munzinger and Mark W. Chase Generic delimitation and relationships in Ebenaceae sensu lato: evidence from six plastid DNA regions (American Journal of Botany. 2006;93:1808-1827.)

! L. Rossignol, M. Rossignol, R. Haicour A Systematic Revision of Phyllanthus Subsection Urinaria (Euphorbiaceae) American Journal of Botany, Vol. 74, No. 12 (Dec., 1987), pp. 1853-1862 Vreejack 21:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

!!!!! Need to get a copy of the Kew Bulletin for 2006 (first quarter). HOFFMANN, P., H. KATHRIARACHCHI, AND K. J. WURDACK. 2006. A phylogenetic classification of Phyllanthaceae (Malpighiales; Euphorbiaceae sensu lato)

Vreejack 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Still looking. The USDA Nat Ag library is missing this article. wtf? The next nearest copy is quite some distance. Vreejack 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does "Xylophylla" redirect here?

"Xylophylla" presently redirects here to "Phyllanthus". There's no mention of the term in the article and I don't know how it connects. There's also a genus of moth with the same name, Xylophylla (moth). If "xylophylla" has something to do with the plant genus, then "Xylophylla" should be a disambig page. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a mention, although since that name hasn't much been used as a genus name since 1866 (as far as I can tell from the source), I'm not sure what to do about the redirects. If the moth name is still in use, maybe just change the redirect to the moth page and don't bother with the disambig. Might depend on whether the moth is equally obscure. (Oh, and it would presumably just be a WP:HATNOTE rather than a full disambig, if we did want it). Kingdon (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Added rext removed

I've reverted a series of recent edits that added a section called "Ecology". Please see discussion at Theaceae. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Phyllanthus needs to be bigger

this article is very small, please someone must add information of its biodiversity and the influence of these plants in the habitats where they are present. This articles says characteristics only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.105.207 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The first task is to find good reliable sources and add carefully formatted citations that are not subject to link rot. Once those sources are available to anyone who reads the page, good information can be added here. Please see Talk:Theaceae for more discussion of the disasters that have occurred when people add indiscriminately. Actually, I doubt that "the influence of these plants in the habitats where they are present" has been the subject of sufficient ecological studies that anything could be said with certainty. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0048032. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Inadequate sourcing and context for fossil record

Omar hoftun added this edit to the Phyllanthus article under "Fossil record" and the same content and source to some 22 other plant articles to date. The edit sources to a 1979 publication of preliminary analysis of soil samples from the Miocene as discovered in a small region of southern Poland. The report identified different plant taxa specimens - in the case of Phyllanthus, only 2 specimens were found - as shown here in Table 2. The "fossil record" section is based on this single report, is not supported by a WP:SCIRS review, and the Acta Palaeobotanica report clearly provides a limited discussion from few specimens found in a limited geographic region, so falls under WP:UNDUE as a topic. It's difficult to see this addition of primary research with such limited context as encyclopedic. If a high-quality review with interpretation by an authoritative source was available, better context for including discussion of the fossil record would exist, and it may then be justified. --Zefr (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)